3 REASONS WHY THE KEYSTONE PIPELINE SHOULD BE BUILT...

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I have first hand experience working around pipelines, derricks and plants -- summer and winter jobs during my high school and college days. It's all dangerous but so is farming.

Scores of farmers and farm hands are injured and killed every year by the machines, e.g., combines, thrashers, etc., they use. I know a farmer that was struck twice by lightning as he was plowing his fields using an uncovered tractor. The strikes were years apart, and he was seriously hurt the first time, but the second time crippled him for life. There have been instances where French farmers were injured or killed when they plowed up artillery shells and pockets of trapped gas from WWI. Most professions have their hazards: some more than others.

Again I agree with all of that, I in fact did the same...my point is a private co taking private citizens land.
I have a fundamental problem with that. I do not see the common good that is used for that taking.

[Chica Chaser]

You keep saying "Taken", as in stolen, and that is fundamentally incorrect. The land owners are paid for the land, or the use thereof. Now whether the owner receives just compensation is another matter entirely, but nothing is taken from anyone. That's where the legal system comes into play and there have been many court cases fought over that over the years. Eminent domain laws have been on the books for years and I get that you have an issue with the whole concept.

In the case of this pipeline, and I'm making some assumptions here, it is going to be traversing almost 100% rural farmland. And that they will only be using a, say 20-50ft wide section of the land, and that is buried below ground. I just don't see the big deal here. There are pipelines of many types all over the country, plus power transmission lines, railroads lines, roads, interstate highways, cell phone towers, etc, etc. When all of those were proposed and subsequently constructed, someone had to sell either a portion of their land or the right of way to their land, and I promise you they were compensated for it. I have personally been there, done that. Out west its not that big a deal as so much of the land is federal, and not in private hands.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

You keep saying "Taken", as in stolen, and that is fundamentally incorrect. The land owners are paid for the land, or the use thereof. If you fuc a girl who does not want to fuc and then pay her a couple of bucks and the law says it is not rape. Do you agree with that law? Is it not rape? ... What difference is there between that and this. Now whether the owner receives just compensation is another matter entirely, but nothing is taken from anyone. Nothing is taken from the lady in question? Shouldn't she just lay there and enjoy it? That seems to be ya'lls answer. Correct me if I'm wrong. That's where the legal system comes into play and there have been many court cases fought over that over the years. Eminent domain laws have been on the books for years and I get that you have an issue with the whole concept. Yes I do.

In the case of this pipeline, and I'm making some assumptions here, it is going to be traversing almost 100% rural farmland. And that they will only be using a, say 20-50ft wide section of the land, and that is buried below ground. Then pay the going rate without threat of Eminent domain laws. That is my point .

Do you see a difference between a power company bringing power to an area for all and a pipeline from private company to private company? And in this case one company is getting a huge break from the taxpayers.

Please tell me the 'public good' in that. Do you agree with Kelo? I do not if there is any question....


http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rights...a/eminentd.htm


In its 5-4 decision in the case of Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important, if very controversial, interpretation of the government's power of "eminent domain," or the power of the government to take land from property owners.

[Chica Chaser]

The power of eminent domain is granted to governmental bodies -- federal, state and local -- by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, under the simple phrase, "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." In simple terms, the government can take privately owned land, as long as the land will be used by the public and the owner is paid a fair price for the land, what the amendment calls, "just compensation."

Its pretty simple, the Fifth amendment needs to be repealed, in your opinion. This is no different than all the other Bill of Rights threads we got here. If you don't like it then get a grass roots movement going to build support to repeal it. If everyone out there was as worked up about it as you, a case would be in front of SCOTUS tomorrow...in a special session.

Its funny how some SCOTUS decisions totally piss off some, while others totally piss off a whole different group, just depends on their political motivation and/or personal beliefs. Whether we like Kelo or not is irrelevant, its established law. Just as some didn't like SCOTUS Bush v. Gore decision or the Obamacare decision or countless others. It is what it is until it get changed.

And for the record, no I do not agree with the Kelo decison, nor do I agree with private companies such as WalMart, Target, Home Depot, Costco, Bed Bath & Beyond, etc using Eminent domain to acquire land space for their private ventures. But as long as these companies continue to "donate" to the politicians election campaigns, this is what you are going to get. http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news...eminentdomain/ But I also see a big difference between a rural pipeline right-of-way in the boonies and a Brand new Wally World complex on the edge of town.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

i know the feeling..

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

i know the feeling..

That 'cause you act like a little girl!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Its pretty simple, the Fifth amendment needs to be repealed, in your opinion. This is no different than all the other Bill of Rights threads we got here. If you don't like it then get a grass roots movement going to build support to repeal it. If everyone out there was as worked up about it as you, a case would be in front of SCOTUS tomorrow...in a special session.

Its funny how some SCOTUS decisions totally piss off some, while others totally piss off a whole different group, just depends on their political motivation and/or personal beliefs. Whether we like Kelo or not is irrelevant, its established law. Just as some didn't like SCOTUS Bush v. Gore decision or the Obamacare decision or countless others. It is what it is until it get changed. Agree

And for the record, no I do not agree with the Kelo decison, nor do I agree with private companies such as WalMart, Target, Home Depot, Costco, Bed Bath & Beyond, etc using Eminent domain to acquire land space for their private ventures. But as long as these companies continue to "donate" to the politicians election campaigns, this is what you are going to get. http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news...eminentdomain/ But I also see a big difference between a rural pipeline right-of-way in the boonies and a Brand new Wally World complex on the edge of town.

That is all I was asking....do you agree or not.

It sure seems to me that a whole lot of folks that do not agree with Kelo, seem to have no problem with this.

My problem with this crap is that it has expanded beyond 'public good'.

I wonder where our big government hater COG falls on this issue.

I have established that our resident Tea Nuts nevergivesitathought and gnad are a-ok with big government intervention in this regard.

[Chica Chaser]

I don't have near the problem with the pipeline as a do some retail complex. We are talking about a minimal amount of land and an unobtrusive one at that. One is much different than the other. Much different.

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

But I also see a big difference between a rural pipeline right-of-way in the boonies and a Brand new Wally World complex on the edge of town.

[Chica Chaser]

I need to do some research on how the Alaska Pipeline is/was setup. I'm guessing it was almost all federal land, so most of this would not apply.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

I don't have near the problem with the pipeline as a do some retail complex. We are talking about a minimal amount of land and an unobtrusive one at that. One is much different than the other. Much different.

+1 Kelo was a screwed up ruling. Seizing such private property for the sake of a commercial, retail operation is quite different than using eminent domain to secure a public thoroughfare or a pipeline right-of-way.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

+1 Kelo was a screwed up ruling. Seizing such private property for the sake of a commercial, retail operation is quite different than using eminent domain to secure a public thoroughfare or a pipeline right-of-way.

Yes they are different , yet they also have similarities. It is hard to argue that this pipeline is for public good. No more public good than was argued in Kelo. So while you two have focused on the differences, how about we take a look at the so called public good. Do you think the pipeline falls under that? They have syated yhey are not selling in our market for the most part.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Yes they are different , yet they also have similarities. It is hard to argue that this pipeline is for public good. No more public good than was argued in Kelo. So while you two have focused on the differences, how about we take a look at the so called public good. Do you think the pipeline falls under that? They have syated yhey are not selling in our market for the most part.

The property seized in the Kelo case was developed, unblighted-residential property. CBS ran an article a couple of weeks ago about one lone, rural hold-out (in Texas or Oklahoma???) who was trying to block the pipeline right-of-way. All of her neighbors had signed contracts and banked their money. Her neighbors explained that once the pipeline is in the ground, they'll continue to use the property as they always had. It seems the majority of her neighbors have already determined it was for the "public good": the public concerned being themselves -- a hint of democracy with overtones of capitalism.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The property seized in the Kelo case was developed, unblighted-residential property. CBS ran an article a couple of weeks ago about one lone, rural hold-out (in Texas or Oklahoma???) who was trying to block the pipeline right-of-way. All of her neighbors had signed contracts and banked their money. Her neighbors explained that once the pipeline is in the ground, they'll continue to use the property as they always had. It seems the majority of her neighbors have already determined it was for the "public good": the public concerned being themselves -- a hint of democracy with overtones of capitalism.

They answered the question that it was in their best interest. That is a far cry from public interest.

My question is this. Make a case where this pipeline is in the public's interest.

Make another case as to why taxpayers should subsidize this project. Tell me how that is different from say Solendra.

IB, if a panhandler stuck a gun to my head, it would be in my best interest to give him a donation. Without the gun or eminent domain would these oil companies get what they wanted? Why not steal their mineral rights too, under the guise of public interest?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

They answered the question that it was in their best interest. That is a far cry from public interest.

My question is this. Make a case where this pipeline is in the public's interest.

Make another case as to why taxpayers should subsidize this project. Tell me how that is different from say Solendra.

IB, if a panhandler stuck a gun to my head, it would be in my best interest to give him a donation. Without the gun or eminent domain would these oil companies get what they wanted? Why not steal their mineral rights too, under the guise of public interest?

You're setting up too many straw man arguments here, WTF. First, eminent domain is and has been Constitutionally recognized and permitted since the ratification of the Bill of Rights, that doesn't mean you have to like it -- especially in instances like the Kelo decison. Secondly, libertards have royally fucked up the vocabulary. When Solyndra was "subsidized" -- it was given real taxpayer money. When oil companies are "subsidized" -- they get to keep money the government really intended to take away.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by WTF

Don't get me wrong IB, I would probably do it too.

...

Have you ever tried to defelop a piece of land with a pipeline running down the middle of it?

Yes. I'm setting in a subdivision with a pipeline running thru it right now. Of course its buried. I doubt there's a planned subdivision in northern Kansas though.

Your arguments are weak, misleading, not entertaining and incomprehensible to anyone but you.